Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Morgan Spurlock's New Show - 30 Days (FX)

Morning Sedition had Morgan Spurlock on as a guest on Friday morning. Morgan originally made a name for himself by creating Supersize Me--a documentary about the abusive role of McDonalds and the Fast Food industry in modern American living.

Recently, Morgan has now been working on a new series called 30 Days, which will be premiering on FX on June 15th. 30 Days sounds like a great project -- The show will tackle various social issues here in America by submerging individuals in different environments to see how they are affected.

In the pilot, Morgan and his girlfriend, Alex, move to Columbus, Ohio for thirty days and try to make ends meet working a minimum wage job, with no health coverage. Another episode takes a pro-war fundamentalist Christian and places them within a Muslim family living in the Muslim capital of America, Dearborn Michigan. In a third example, a homophobe and former member of the military lives with a gay couple in San Francisco. In each episode the show outlines how individual views are challenged as they learn about different cultures and ways of life.

I think this is a tremendous project, and I really look forward to watching this show. Morgan did a great job with Supersize Me, and I wish him luck in this endeavor. If you have a few minutes, I recommend downloading the archive of Morning Sedition - available here. The Morgan Spurlock interview begins at 1 hour and 24 minutes.

Sunday, May 22, 2005

My Take on "Crash"

If you haven't seen Crash yet, do yourself a favor and go and see it. Personally, I believe Crash to be the most essential and well-written movie of the year. Not since Hotel Rwanda and The Corporation in 2003 has such a relevant movie been released. Crash is a work of art - with beautiful writing, great acting, and a very powerful message. Note that if you have not yet watched the movie, I would recommend not reading this blog entry until after you have had a chance to watch it, as my discussion will contain SPOILERS.

Where Hotel Rwanda intended primarily to inform the world of the genocide taking place in Africa, and The Corporation served to educate the public of corruptive role that corporations play in today's society, the primary role of Crash is to illuminate the public to the pervasiveness of racism that still exists just underneath the surface of common civility in today's society.

Racism is a touchy subject, and the wide spectrum of reactions to Crash serve as witness to that fact. Walking out of the theatre, I heard a wide variety of reactions - In general, the movie has received raving reviews, yet many people will no doubt feel offended by the stereotypes portrayed in the film.

I think that this was the primary motive of the film. The movie was obviously designed to offend the sensibilities of everybody watching the film - to force you to imagine yourself in each of the movie's stereotypical roles - to make you squirm in your seat and make you feel uncomfortable.

A primary example of this is the scene where Officer Hanson, played by Ryan Phillippe, ends up shooting Peter (played by Larenz Tate) in a misunderstanding, after mistakenly assuming that Peter was pulling out a gun. This is a very deep scene that can very easily be taken in different ways, but I believe this scene to be one of the keys to the movie.

Officer Hanson's decision to pull out the gun and shoot came from a very deep-seated form of psychological racism hidden deep within his psyche. This racist action came as a total shock to Officer Hanson, who believed himself to be a upstanding, progressive and understanding individual. This racial prejudice did not stem from an overt or pervasive discriminatory worldview on Hanson's behalf, but from a systematic fear that resided deep within his psyche, due to years of conditioning from a racist worldview presented by the mass media.

We have made tremendous progress over the past century, but, as a society, we still have a long way to go. We are still only decades removed from segregation, the Civil Rights Movement, and Martin Luther King, Jr. We live in a society where slavery was originally legalized by the constitution. With none to proud a historical record on the subject of racism, the United States should not be too quick to discard the subject of racism as a thing of the past. In today's politically correct environment, it is all too easy to brush racism under the rug, and try to pretend that it doesn't exist, but it is simply not reality.

All too often, I hear racist comments made. Law enforcement and our legal system are both inherently racist, with black far more likely to be tried and convicted for similar offences when compared statistically to white men. The media plays a large part in this perpetuation of racism and stereotypes - With local newscasts more likely to cover stories that perpetuate the role of the black man as the criminal, and television shows and movies also doing the same.

My personal interpretation of Crash is that the movie is intended to raise awareness of the issue of hidden prejudices, and to force you to re-examine your own beliefs and prejudices. Only through continual awareness of the issue, and open discussion can we continue to work towards a more progressive society. And by the way, don't forget to take the time to enjoy the movie during all the introspection and self-examination -- Personally, I hope this movie receives the Oscar recognition it is so deserving of.

Saturday, May 07, 2005

Walk Away Released

I put together the finishing touches on my song, Walk Away. I previously discussed the motivation for writing the song earlier this week. You can check out the song and download it at http://www.myspace.com/markheimonen. For what's it worth, my recording studio consists of a fifteen year old Roland Keyboard, a $30 radio shack mike, my grandfather's old Washburn guitar, and a PC I put together two years ago.

You'd think that somebody who cared enough about a topic to write a song about it would've already learned everything there is to know about. Well, I guess that isn't the case with me. I picked up a great book at the library on Friday - The End of Oil - On the Edge of a Perilous New World, by Paul Roberts. I'm not even through the first chapter yet, but I whole-heartidly recommend this book to everyone. A quick quote from the book, which pretty much sums up the message of my song:

"Critics place much of the blam on a political system corrupted by big energy interests -- companies desperate to protect billions of dollars in existing energy technologies and infrastructure. An equal mesaure of blame, however, must fall on the "average" American consumer, who each year seems to know less, and care less, about how much energy he or she uses, where it comes from, or what its true costs are. Americans, it seems, suffer profoundly from what may soon be known as energy illiteracy: most of us understand so little about our energy economy that we have no idea that it has begun to fall apart." (Roberts, The End Of Oil, p. 15-16)

Lyrics to Walk Away:

They''ll never really tell us what it's all aboutThey'll sing this song forever n' it's gotta stop right nowThey'll never want to let it go They'll never want to let us know They don't want to give us a sayWe're running out - it's clear as day The time is short - We'll soon all pay For leaders who refuse to walk away

They'll sell us fairy tales - It's all gonna be allrightThey do their best to quiet us - Are we gonna put up a fight?Nucelar (nuclear) oil gas and coal All lead us back the same whole Are we gonna learn to walk away?Fighting a war we shouldn't be in Lying to us - respinnin' the spin There's no just cause for what they've gone and done

They want to drain our last resource Our last great hope - Our last recourse will soon be gone before we've had our sayThey'll never want to let it go They'll never want to let us know They don't want to give us a sayWe're running out - it's clear as day The time is short - We'll soon all pay For leaders who refuse to walk away

Thursday, May 05, 2005

Walk Away Pre-Release Notes (Updated)

I've been working on a new music project this past week. The song is close to complete, but I still need to finalize the lyrics and lay down the vocal tracks. The song is entitled "Walk Away", and it deals with our nation's dependance on oil and non-renewable energy. I'm hoping to wrap up the song some time this week, and hope to have it available for download before the end of the weekend. I put together some release notes on the motivation for the song, so I thought I'd post them here:

This song is about walking away from oil. Sure, we have witnessed great progress in science and technology over the past two hundred years, but it hasn’t come without a cost. We have consumed the majority of the Earth’s fossil fuels in an alarmingly short period of time. The rate of economic growth, prosperity and luxury witnessed during the twenty-first century is clearly unsustainable.

There will still be fossil fuels around for a short while—the experts don’t really have an exact answer on when we will start running out, but it is generally accepted that as a global economy, we will reach peak oil production within the next twenty years, if we haven’t already. As the economies of China and India continue to grow at double-digit rates, the demand for oil will only continue to grow. In the short term, this means higher prices for imported goods, groceries, and at the pump, along with greater revenues for oil companies.

But, I digress. The absolute truth behind this story is that eventually, the world’s oil resources will not be able to meet the demands of the global economy. If we don’t prepare in advance for this change, the result will be devastating – hunger and starvation, inequality, and large-scale global wars over the remaining energy resources on this planet. We have already witnessed the beginning with the Iraqi war and the turmoil over the decision to drill for oil in ANWR.

The simple truth is that it is irresponsible for our society to simply ignore this issue or pretend it doesn’t exist. To do so is to pass the problem off to our children, who will be, quite simply, less equipped to deal with the problem.

So, what can we do? As individuals, there is little we can do – Sure, we can all do our part to conserve energy where we can. However, this is an issue that must be dealt with at the highest levels. It starts with awareness and changing attitudes. We simply cannot use the excuse that says “As Americans, we have grown accustomed to our individualistic, high energy-expenditure lifestyles”. Remember that our children and future generations need to share the planet and resources that we are using today.

I mentioned changing attitudes—specifically, I am targeting the fundamentalist, nearly religious, zeal that is exhibited among defenders of the free market ideology. Don’t get me wrong – the free market is a wonderful invention—elegant in its simplicity, and one of the driving forces behind the industrial revolution of the American Dream. When market forces are treated an absolute ideal and truth, the entire system begins to crumble under its own weight.The classic argument against massive adoption of alternative energy resources, particularly solar and wind, is that to do so is simply too expensive. The argument is that, as the supply of fossil fuels dwindles, the cost of oil and gas will eventually become prohibitively expensive, and market forces will cause our economy to naturally begin adapting to large-scale usage of alternative energy resources. This line of thinking is unfortunate, simplistic and foolhardy. As we begin to reach peak oil production, demand for the remaining fossil energy resources on this planet will rapidly begin to outweigh supply, resulting in unnecessary war and suffering.

The primary difference cited is the relatively lower cost of conventional fuel to that of solar or wind. This is where the fallacy of the absolute belief in market forces comes in to play. The free market does not represent an absolute truth—but, rather, a tool developed by mankind in order to encourage the efficient distribution and supply of goods and services. The market cost of fuel does not represent the true cost to society. The cost of oil we pay at the pump does not weigh in the cost of the Iraqi war, the cost of the devastation to our environment, the cost of global warming, and the cost of continuing to rely on an energy resource that will eventually run out.

Another change that we must undergo is a rethinking of the American political climate. Politics has become a dirty word in America—does it have to be so? In its ideal, entering a life of public servitude should be an action deserving and honor. Sadly, this is far from the truth. The level of deception, corruption and illegitimacy in American politics is lamentable.

The entire notion of campaign contributions and the lobbyist industry are entirely regrettable, with little or no positive contribution to society. Politics in America has become a campaign of individual motivation and self-preservation, where pandering to corporate interests in order to finance the next re-election campaign is routine, and integrity the exception.

How do we expect our politicians to make decisions that are in our nation’s best interests when their campaigns are bankrolled by lobbyists for the oil industry? The energy industry, as a whole, contributed $2.8 million dollars into the Bush Administration’s campaign. In return for millions of dollars in campaign contributions, corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel have been rewarded with Billions of dollars in reconstruction contracts in Iraq.

The cleanest form of renewable energy on our planet is the sun. An essentially infinite amount of solar energy can be harvested from the sun. Collecting the amount of solar energy required to power our nation, however, is a daunting task. The truth is that we consume a massive amount of energy in this nation. The sun provides an estimated 1.4 KWH/Square Meter to the Earth, but an average of only about 1 KWH/Square Meter is actually collectable, due to variances in weather and cloud coverage. Some areas of the country, such as Arizona, are much better equipped to collect solar energy than others.

Theoretically, if we covered a geographical area of land the size of the state of Arizona in solar panels, we could power the entire energy grid. Unfortunately, this solution is far separated from reality. For one, the nation would still require a significant level of power generation at nighttime, during storms, and in the winter. Secondly, there is no way to efficiently conduct electricity from the Southwest all the way up to the Northeast corner of the country. Efficient use of wind, tidal, and hydroelectricity in the Northeast may help alleviate this problem.

No one has said that switching to a renewable energy infrastructure was going to be easy, but we need to develop a proactive, rather than reactive, approach to the situation. How do we do that? By encouraging the development and usage of renewable energy resources, and discouraging the use of non-renewable fossil fuels. What are the current limiting factors? In order to encourage the adoption of renewable energy resources, our government needs to develop an energy policy based on actively seeking the development of renewable energy resources, and limiting wasteful usage of energy. Here are some suggestions:

Increase national spending on research and development of alternative energy. Our nation’s Renewable Energy budget is roughly $200 million, and is under threat to be further reduced by the Bush Administration. In contrast, the yearly budget of the military-industrial complex is a mind-bogglingly astonishing sum of over $420 Billion. If the money used to finance the Iraq War were instead earmarked to developing renewable energies, the idea of developing a renewable energy infrastructure would be much more attainable.

Increased taxes on gas prices – This does not seem like something that would be very popular here in the United States. In much of the rest of the developed world, individuals rely much more heavily on mass transportation, like trains and busses. Most developed nations outside the US have much higher gas taxes, and, as a result, rely less heavily on gas. Increased taxes at the pump, combined with tax breaks for using mass transportation would go a long way in encouraging more efficient use of our resources.

What I’d like you to take away from all of this:

ANWR can only supply approximately 3% of our national energy supply for a fifteen year period. It is not a panacea. The net effect of drilling for oil in ANWR at this point it to temporarily alleviate the high gas prices for a short period of time. Doing so will simply hinder the development of a national renewable energy infrastructure. If we instead focus on developing a renewable energy infrastructure, the ANWR resources will still be there for us if we really need them as a last resort.

Developing a national renewable energy infrastructure is not going to be an easy or a cheap affair. A great deal of expense is needed in the field of research and development, and the wide-scale deployment of industrial-scale solar cells and wind generators is going to require a formidable expense. Maintenance and upkeep of these deployments will also significant expense. Due to the relatively higher economic cost of renewable technologies to that of conventional energy, we have several courses of action to encourage their development. A combination of economic incentives and tax breaks for the development of renewable energy and added surcharges for continuing to rely on oil and gas. Since the final sale price of oil and gas does not include the hidden costs of the Iraq War, the environmental devastation, and the implicit cost of continuing to remain dependant on a resource that will one day run out, market manipulation is the only way that renewable technologies can compete on a level playing field. Before you discount this as an idea without merit, seriously consider that the Iraqi war should most likely be considered a form of market manipulation.

The decision to equate a political campaign contribution with free speech was a lamentable idea at best. The decision to treat a corporation as an individual was equally so. Taken together, the concept of Corporate Campaign Contributions is, ultimately, insane. As far as I know, we had no previous model to work from, so I think we should treat the whole concept as a grand experiment, and start over again. That’s how I view democracy—as a continual and on-going grand experiment. If we don’t learn from our past mistakes, our nation will simply will not continue to be a successful. The moment we decide to accept cash payments as form of free speech, we lose the benefit of a level playing field. When those with the greatest financial success have a louder voice than the rest, we no longer have a fair and equitable society. It is quite obvious that such a system favors the rich and the wealthy, and promotes an aristocracy. When you add the removal of the estate tax into the equation, the regressive Bush tax cuts, and the elimination of the fairness doctrine, you should quickly realize that the balance of power has tipped decisively in favor of the rich. Instead of a campaign ad driven popularity contest, election results should be based on ideas.

Developing a renewable energy infrastructure will not be cheap. How can we solve our nation’s fiscal problems, and also focus on developing a renewable energy infrastructure? There are easy answers. Roll back the Bush Tax Cuts, which were never a good idea, and really only benefit the richest two per cent of our population. Renew the estate tax, which basically only affected those who leave behind massive quantities of wealth. Cut back our nation’s military spending—The United States spend ten times more than any other nation on the military-industrial complex. Make these changes would be enough to get our nation’s economy back on track, balance the budget, and have enough left over to begin seriously developing a renewable energy infrastructure.

In George W. Bush’s recent press conference, he announced that the US will address the impending energy crisis by building additional coal plants, oil refineries, and increasingly relying on coal and nuclear energy. This administration simply doesn’t get it. They continually state that we must lessen our reliance on foreign oil. That is part of the equation, but nowhere near a complete solution. We must reduce our reliance on both foreign and domestic oil – We must make a plan for eventually phasing out all reliance on fossil fuels. Building new coal and oil plants at this point is a massive waste of resources, which would be better used in research and development of renewable energies.

In the end, I am suggesting a few changes that would go a long way towards developing an economy that is less dependent on non-renewable energy resources. I don’t have all the answers, but the sooner we quit treating our national energy policy like a game of global domination, the more likely it is that we will be prepared for the impending energy crisis when it does occur.

About

In our modern society, with all it's comfort and convinience, it is far too easy to fall into a pattern of complacency. To borrow a term that was recently brandished by the 9/11 commission, I'd like to label this condition "Societal groupThink".

"Groupthink is a term coined by psychologist Irving Janis in 1972 to describe one process by which a group can make bad or irrational decisions. In a groupthink situation, each member of the group attempts to conform his or her opinions to what they believe to be the consensus of the group. This results in a situation in which the group ultimately agrees on an action which each member might normally consider to be unwise.

Janis' original definition of the term was "a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action." The word groupthink itself was intended to be reminiscent of George Orwell's coinages (such as doublethink and duckspeak) from the fictional language Newspeak, which he portrayed in his ideological novel Nineteen Eighty-Four."

I'd like to challenge you to re-examine your fundemental understanding; to re-think that which you know; to not accept the status-quo.